"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein

miroflex wrote:What is the latest position on the validity and implementation of the New Arms Rules 2016? Are they in force?

If my information is not incorrect, Arms Rules 2016 have not been presented in both houses of Parliament to be passed to the satisfaction of Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959. Thus technically the new rules do not have force of law, but it appears they are being enforced illegally by licensing authorities.

miroflex wrote:What are the provisions in the New Rules for issue of licences for second and third weapons?

Anything that is very clearly mentioned in the parent legislation, it is not necessary for the same to be repeated in the sub ordinate legislation. Sub ordinate legislation cannot override or go against the parent legislation. Arms Act 1959 is the parent legislation, it's Rules are it's sub ordinate legislation.

sir The Arms rule 2016 is notified in the gazette, and to my limited knowledge an Act becomes law with enforcement from the date of gazette notification which is the last procedure for implementing the law and once its notified no person can plead ignorance as an excuse and i have gone through the section 44 also and i believe it should be the draft bill that has to be placed before both the house and after its approval it would be sent to the assent of president and after the assent of the president it would become an Act and the Act becomes law on gazette notification

I am presenting below some statistical data published by the National Crime Records Bureau - 2015 that I believe may be useful in evolving policy matters relevant to the licensing of guns in the State of Kerala where I live.

A glance of the data presents us with the following facts:

1. Utter Pradesh with the maximum gun licenses at 12,77,914 as of the year 2016, has actually lower crime rates than Kerala, which has issued 9,459 licenses during the same period.2. The 2nd highest numbers of gun licenses were issued in Punjab, which too has far lower cases of crime than several other states.3. The lowest crime-rate registered was in Himachal Pradesh, which has more than 8 times the total number of gun licenses issued by the State of Kerala. 4. While the crime-rates are fewer in the above States, where the gun licenses issued are more than the crimes reported, in sharp contrast, these statistics also present us with a clear picture that in Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Kerala, Assam and Delhi, where the crime-rates are very much on the higher side, have actually issued much fewer gun licenses.

Sir, I am not saying that the higher or lower number of crimes registered in those States have a direct relation to the number of gun licenses issued or not issued. Other causes may be cited. For example, one may argue that the higher cases of crimes registered in Kerala could be due to the higher literacy rate in the State. This argument however gets dissipated as we move to Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, where the literacy rates are far behind those of Kerala.

In yet another set of data (copy enclosed), also published by NCRB, we realise that cases involving Arms Act for the period 2005-2015 have actually taken a decline. Crimes involving licensed Fire Arms for the period from 2011 to 2015 were 1947 cases (fatalities) as against a total of 23,09,674 heinous crimes such as Murder (32127), Rape (34656), Kidnapping (82999), Dacoity (3922), Robbery (36188), Arson (9710), Property Crime (625279), Crime Against Body (857995), Against Women (327394), Children (94172) and Senior Citizens (205232) in 2015 alone.

I am not a proponent for issuing “free-for-all” gun licenses but I am dreadfully worried about the exponential growth of crimes in our State, given the fact that we are an old couple living alone and defenseless.

Sir, the licensing authorities fail me when they ask whether there is a “Grave and Imminent Threat” to Life”, a mandatory and must-prove “Yes” query for granting a license when they know it well that none of the criminals who perpetrated the above heinous crimes would have notified their victims.

It is a tendency to see guns as weapons of destruction, while millions of guns are deployed across the globe, ensuring peace and stability, protecting life and property.

The data published by the National Crime Records Bureau is an eye-opener. The data present a strong case for the Law-enforcement Authorities to support the cause of protecting oneself and his properties by issuing more gun licenses selectively.

Summary:a. Crimes are increasing at alarming proportions all across India.b. Of all the States, Kerala clocked the highest rate of IPC Crimes at 723.2 cases per 100,000 population.c. States that issued the highest gun licenses had the lowest crimes rate. d. States that issued fewer gun licenses had much higher rates of crime.e. Licensed guns appear to be containing crimes in States where they are issued in good numbers.f. Crimes involving guns appear to be comparatively fewer and steadily diminishing.g. It is not possible to ascertain the existence of Grave and Imminent Threat to Life, prior to the incident of a grave crime.h. Guns in the right hands should not be seen as weapons of destruction but of prevention (of crime) and of protection (of lives).

Conclusion:We could take a cue from the statistics to issue more gun licenses to individuals selectively in those States where crimes are relatively higher. Sincerely yours,

a) Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairsb) The Home Minister, Government of Indiac) The Prime Ministerd) The Joint Secretary, Internal Security-II, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhie) Your local Member of Parliamentf) Your local Member of Legislative Assembly

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein

pkaran wrote:I am presenting below some statistical data published by the National Crime Records Bureau - 2015 that I believe may be useful in evolving policy matters relevant to the licensing of guns in the State of Kerala where I live.

A glance of the data presents us with the following facts:

1. Utter Pradesh with the maximum gun licenses at 12,77,914 as of the year 2016, has actually lower crime rates than Kerala, which has issued 9,459 licenses during the same period.2. The 2nd highest numbers of gun licenses were issued in Punjab, which too has far lower cases of crime than several other states.3. The lowest crime-rate registered was in Himachal Pradesh, which has more than 8 times the total number of gun licenses issued by the State of Kerala. 4. While the crime-rates are fewer in the above States, where the gun licenses issued are more than the crimes reported, in sharp contrast, these statistics also present us with a clear picture that in Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Kerala, Assam and Delhi, where the crime-rates are very much on the higher side, have actually issued much fewer gun licenses.

Sir, I am not saying that the higher or lower number of crimes registered in those States have a direct relation to the number of gun licenses issued or not issued. Other causes may be cited. For example, one may argue that the higher cases of crimes registered in Kerala could be due to the higher literacy rate in the State. This argument however gets dissipated as we move to Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, where the literacy rates are far behind those of Kerala.

In yet another set of data (copy enclosed), also published by NCRB, we realise that cases involving Arms Act for the period 2005-2015 have actually taken a decline. Crimes involving licensed Fire Arms for the period from 2011 to 2015 were 1947 cases (fatalities) as against a total of 23,09,674 heinous crimes such as Murder (32127), Rape (34656), Kidnapping (82999), Dacoity (3922), Robbery (36188), Arson (9710), Property Crime (625279), Crime Against Body (857995), Against Women (327394), Children (94172) and Senior Citizens (205232) in 2015 alone.

I am not a proponent for issuing “free-for-all” gun licenses but I am dreadfully worried about the exponential growth of crimes in our State, given the fact that we are an old couple living alone and defenseless.

Sir, the licensing authorities fail me when they ask whether there is a “Grave and Imminent Threat” to Life”, a mandatory and must-prove “Yes” query for granting a license when they know it well that none of the criminals who perpetrated the above heinous crimes would have notified their victims.

It is a tendency to see guns as weapons of destruction, while millions of guns are deployed across the globe, ensuring peace and stability, protecting life and property.

The data published by the National Crime Records Bureau is an eye-opener. The data present a strong case for the Law-enforcement Authorities to support the cause of protecting oneself and his properties by issuing more gun licenses selectively.

Summary:a. Crimes are increasing at alarming proportions all across India.b. Of all the States, Kerala clocked the highest rate of IPC Crimes at 723.2 cases per 100,000 population.c. States that issued the highest gun licenses had the lowest crimes rate. d. States that issued fewer gun licenses had much higher rates of crime.e. Licensed guns appear to be containing crimes in States where they are issued in good numbers.f. Crimes involving guns appear to be comparatively fewer and steadily diminishing.g. It is not possible to ascertain the existence of Grave and Imminent Threat to Life, prior to the incident of a grave crime.h. Guns in the right hands should not be seen as weapons of destruction but of prevention (of crime) and of protection (of lives).

Conclusion:We could take a cue from the statistics to issue more gun licenses to individuals selectively in those States where crimes are relatively higher. Sincerely yours,

A very good initiative sir, please do make a copy to the authorities mentioned by abhijeet sir, the procedure for obtaining a firearm license covers the verification on all most every aspect of the person and without any remark on verification, denying a firearm license would be an arbitary action, further when a firearm license is made for self defence or protection the authorities would say giving protection to the citizen is the duty of the state but the above attachments clearly out ruled it, am also in attempt of procuring the firearm license since my state (Tamil Nadu) has one of the least issuance of firearm license, i will also narate my experience very soon, good luck with your move sir

Sci-fic wrote: The Arms rule 2016 is notified in the gazette, and to my limited knowledge an Act becomes law with enforcement from the date of gazette notification which is the last procedure for implementing the law and once its notified no person can plead ignorance as an excuse and i have gone through the section 44 also and i believe it should be the draft bill that has to be placed before both the house and after its approval it would be sent to the assent of president and after the assent of the president it would become an Act and the Act becomes law on gazette notification

(3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in 1*[two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid], both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

As per my limited understanding, Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959 is making clear that -

1. Central government can notify the Rules

2. It is mandatory to present these Rules before Parliament

3. Only those Rules that get approval of Parliament finally acquire the "force of law"

Or I am missing some fine point of law that is twisting the meaning of Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959 to something else?

Sci-fic wrote: The Arms rule 2016 is notified in the gazette, and to my limited knowledge an Act becomes law with enforcement from the date of gazette notification which is the last procedure for implementing the law and once its notified no person can plead ignorance as an excuse and i have gone through the section 44 also and i believe it should be the draft bill that has to be placed before both the house and after its approval it would be sent to the assent of president and after the assent of the president it would become an Act and the Act becomes law on gazette notification

(3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in 1*[two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid], both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

As per my limited understanding, Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959 is making clear that -

1. Central government can notify the Rules

2. It is mandatory to present these Rules before Parliament

3. Only those Rules that get approval of Parliament finally acquire the "force of law"

Or I am missing some fine point of law that is twisting the meaning of Section 44(3) of Arms Act 1959 to something else?

As a law student, I regret to inform you that you are indeed missing the point. The key words under section 44(3) of the Arms Act 1959 are, "both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be.." In other words, only for the rule to be modified, both Houses must agree to the modification or only for the rule to be cancelled, both Houses must agree. If there is no agreement on modification or cancellation, the rule stands and is valid.